How does one distinguish between feedback and discussion, so that one could say, "This isn't feedback, it's discussion and thus against the rules"?

Does authority imbue one with more latitude to attack others...despite claims it inhibits attacks...so long as the attacks are in a good cause?

If time outs are a finite quantity greater than 1 ....is someone with 0 pretty safe?

Not sure what you're asking, but I do know that when one has expectations as to how others should react to something, then it's guaranteed that the person having those expectations will be let down, unless they're on a board where people are banned every time they disagree, which then simply results in a board where everyone wants to be surrounded by "yes people," which would be the ultimate in b.o.r.i.n.g.

It's not "bullying" to offer differing opinions and to point out glaring inconsistencies in someone's line of thinking. Last time I checked, it's nothing more than adults engaging in interesting discourse, but I guess to those with little or no mental backbone, it's seen as "bullying."

Easy as heck to be on a board where everyone agrees on everything. Boards like that are the kindergartens of internet boardom.

I usually go for controlled harmonic and orchestral feedback, sometimes finger vibrato or whammy induced. The amp volume level is too loud for discussion!!!!!!

_________________"With every decision, think seven generations ahead of the consequences of your actions" Ute rule of life.“We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children”― Chief Seattle“Those Who Have the Privilege to Know Have the Duty to Act”…Albert Einstein

How does one distinguish between feedback and discussion, so that one could say, "This isn't feedback, it's discussion and thus against the rules"?

Feedback is where one posts a question or comment to the board administration. Discussion is where one posts a comment to another poster in an ongoing "conversation"

Quote:

Does authority imbue one with more latitude to attack others...despite claims it inhibits attacks...so long as the attacks are in a good cause?

That would be a good question for Josh as he is the final determination on this board. Sometimes the best defense is a good offense and sometimes that is the only way to get the point across to some folks.

Quote:

If time outs are a finite quantity greater than 1 ....is someone with 0 pretty safe?

Relatively speaking, yes, but there is no absolute and the magnitude of the offense is considered.

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein

How does one distinguish between feedback and discussion, so that one could say, "This isn't feedback, it's discussion and thus against the rules"?

Feedback is where one posts a question or comment to the board administration. Discussion is where one posts a comment to another poster in an ongoing "conversation"

Ah...well all my comments were for the consideration of the board administration.

Quote:

Quote: Does authority imbue one with more latitude to attack others...despite claims it inhibits attacks...so long as the attacks are in a good cause?

That would be a good question for Josh as he is the final determination on this board. Sometimes the best defense is a good offense and sometimes that is the only way to get the point across to some folks.

I feel much the same way. However, that doesn't really address whether authority grants the latitude to employ that, and what cause would justify it. Besides...it rather did seem, at one time, that personal attacks were just out and out prohibited.

Quote:

Quote: If time outs are a finite quantity greater than 1 ....is someone with 0 pretty safe?

Relatively speaking, yes, but there is no absolute and the magnitude of the offense is considered.

So it isn't a rule...it's a whim. That's fine, but one should be accurate in describing it.

Cept something is missing here. If someone uses feed back to make a claim that is false or a misrepresentation on feedback then it would seem that a defense debate would be needed to prove the point.

A single defense would be acceptable, but when it is multiple people going back and forth it is a discussion ...

However it could be that as in the thread today on feedback, where a pot was calling a kettle black that numerous posters drew attention to the unfairness of the lead posters attempt to ignore her own transgressions .

_________________I use red, not because of anger but to define my posts to catch rebuttals latter and it makes the quote feature redundent for me. The rest of you pick your own color.

How does one distinguish between feedback and discussion, so that one could say, "This isn't feedback, it's discussion and thus against the rules"?

Feedback is where one posts a question or comment to the board administration. Discussion is where one posts a comment to another poster in an ongoing "conversation"

Ah...well all my comments were for the consideration of the board administration.

Like many of your other submissions, this does not seem to have any relevance to this board does it? This would be a DISCUSSION...

RF wrote:

Amy7779311 wrote:

Grace wrote:

Amy, you stopped posting here for a couple reasons, one of which "cause people don't like you for some reason". Popularity ranks high with you and I'd like to see your reaction to having an internet "stalker" like Donnie continually mention your name to other posters, completely off topic, making unjustified and false claims in threads you weren't involved it. It's one thing to go one on one with someone in a thread and defend yourself, quite another when you're not there to defend yourself and the poster is full of himself to boot. It's childish is right. Get a grip is right.

Um, Donnie used to mention me in all manners of threads when I first joined FMB. This went on for months and months and yes it bothered me because I was constantly being reminded of my own conflicts within myself.

I didn't say I thought it was right or wrong.... but it is true that you are blaming Donnie for something that you also do.

Long as we're bringing up past trangressions, let's remember that Grace called me a d*cksucker at another board.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote: Does authority imbue one with more latitude to attack others...despite claims it inhibits attacks...so long as the attacks are in a good cause?

That would be a good question for Josh as he is the final determination on this board. Sometimes the best defense is a good offense and sometimes that is the only way to get the point across to some folks.

I feel much the same way. However, that doesn't really address whether authority grants the latitude to employ that, and what cause would justify it. Besides...it rather did seem, at one time, that personal attacks were just out and out prohibited.

You would have to provide the "attacks" for clarification. For example, to say you seem to have trouble understanding what is posted is not an attack but an observation. Now if one had been called 'stupid' because of their inability to comprehend the posting, that would be an attack and would not be acceptable.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote: If time outs are a finite quantity greater than 1 ....is someone with 0 pretty safe?

Relatively speaking, yes, but there is no absolute and the magnitude of the offense is considered.

So it isn't a rule...it's a whim. That's fine, but one should be accurate in describing it.

No, it is not a whim. For example, one poster was banned for posting porn. There would not be a second chance for such an offense. I would have thought you could understand the difference between the levels of violations, but it appears I was mistaken.

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein

Cept something is missing here. If someone uses feed back to make a claim that is false or a misrepresentation on feedback then it would seem that a defense debate would be needed to prove the point.

A single defense would be acceptable, but when it is multiple people going back and forth it is a discussion ...

However it could be that as in the thread today on feedback, where a pot was calling a kettle black that numerous posters drew attention to the unfairness of the lead posters attempt to ignore her own transgressions .

And developed into a discussion .... right? Who do you think told TruVenom about the thread Grace started when you were in your time out? I do not see everything but I see enough to know where to look when there is smoke.

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein

Cept something is missing here. If someone uses feed back to make a claim that is false or a misrepresentation on feedback then it would seem that a defense debate would be needed to prove the point.

A single defense would be acceptable, but when it is multiple people going back and forth it is a discussion ...

However it could be that as in the thread today on feedback, where a pot was calling a kettle black that numerous posters drew attention to the unfairness of the lead posters attempt to ignore her own transgressions .

Good. Then you can understand why the unmen tion ed feedback thread ended up b ein g a discussion where it seems posters understood who was unfairly transgressing . I thin k that was the point RF is tryin g to make. If other posters question the intent of todays feedback thread and a FORUM discussion follows then their input is important enough to maintain not cut .

And developed into a discussion .... right? Who do you think told TruVenom about the thread Grace started when you were in your time out? I do not see everything but I see enough to know where to look when there is smoke.

_________________I use red, not because of anger but to define my posts to catch rebuttals latter and it makes the quote feature redundent for me. The rest of you pick your own color.

Like many of your other submissions, this does not seem to have any relevance to this board does it? This would be a DISCUSSION...

Ah...I see you did consider my submission.

Quote:

You would have to provide the "attacks" for clarification. For example, to say you seem to have trouble understanding what is posted is not an attack but an observation. Now if one had been called 'stupid' because of their inability to comprehend the posting, that would be an attack and would not be acceptable.

But insinuation and generalization are fine. For example, if I said that people who shoot snakes with pot-metal pistols are provincial idiots, that would be okay...since I didn't mention any specific pot metal pistol totin' snake shooter.

Quote:

No, it is not a whim. For example, one poster was banned for posting porn. There would not be a second chance for such an offense. I would have thought you could understand the difference between the levels of violations, but it appears I was mistaken.

So posting porn absolutely leads to the poster being banned. But there are no absolutes.

Like many of your other submissions, this does not seem to have any relevance to this board does it? This would be a DISCUSSION...

Ah...I see you did consider my submission.

No it was not relevant to anything on this board.

Quote:

Quote:

You would have to provide the "attacks" for clarification. For example, to say you seem to have trouble understanding what is posted is not an attack but an observation. Now if one had been called 'stupid' because of their inability to comprehend the posting, that would be an attack and would not be acceptable.

But insinuation and generalization are fine. For example, if I said that people who shoot snakes with pot-metal pistols are provincial idiots, that would be okay...since I didn't mention any specific pot metal pistol totin' snake shooter.

Considering the source of this claim, I would not think anyone would take offense. Your credibility has taken quite a hit so such attempts would be expected in an attempt to try to make a case even if it were not true. It is a shame that so many of your posts have a question concerning the honesty of the material. Such credibility issues are hard to shake.

Quote:

Quote:

No, it is not a whim. For example, one poster was banned for posting porn. There would not be a second chance for such an offense. I would have thought you could understand the difference between the levels of violations, but it appears I was mistaken.

So posting porn absolutely leads to the poster being banned. But there are no absolutes.

Seriously Wayne...are you that fond of wallowing in relativism?

See another case of less than honest presentation. Notice the context of the questions and the false claims you have made?

Quote:

Quote:

Quote: If time outs are a finite quantity greater than 1 ....is someone with 0 pretty safe?

Relatively speaking, yes, but there is no absolute and the magnitude of the offense is considered.

So it isn't a rule...it's a whim. That's fine, but one should be accurate in describing it.

No, it is not a whim. For example, one poster was banned for posting porn. There would not be a second chance for such an offense. I would have thought you could understand the difference between the levels of violations, but it appears I was mistaken.[/quote]

Notice you asked specifically whether a poster with 0 time outs would be safe, and I explained that they would unless their first offense was a major one. You then misrepresent that as a whim, which is corrected and you then try to misrepresent the statement yet again. You indicate there was some reference to no absolutes when that was not the case. You seem to be doing more and more misrepresenting of what has been said. If you continue to do so you will have no credibility left at all.

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein